In response to a forum reply that I felt crossed a boundary, where the writer questioned the courage of Andrew Albers, instead of just deleting the post I decided to try a bit of "see how you like it". Since it stirred up some controversy, I am posting here the private message I later sent:

Brock and I were both basically reacting to one sentence:

Albers could have at least had the balls to fight for it if he really wanted it.

Nothing else in your several posts was an issue for me at least.

And your choice of the word "balls", while also off-color and thus a mild problem, isn't the issue either; you could have said

Albers could have at least had the courage to fight for it if he really wanted it.

and it would still have been a problem.

Please review the Updated Comment Policy if you are unclear. Rule #1 is

1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.)

There is just no place in the forums at TD for a comment like yours about a player's courage.

Your reaction to my questionable choice of a "see how you like it when it is directed at you" response demonstrates that the advice I was given to just delete comments that harm the tone of any given thread may work best in the long run; it's not some omniscient power but simply a way to keep threads from degenerating. Maybe your response was in that same vein but I don't think so; you just seemed to not like it to have your own courage questioned or to have someone presume to know what goes on inside your head. Yet that's what you wanted to do regarding Albers' ninth inning.

Please instead accept the criticism in the spirit it was intended, to recognize when a comment you're about to post approaches an area where a moderator will need to step in. Most people manage to steer far clear, and mostly you do too I think.

In a thread elsewhere:

  Quote

This is a sincere inquiry as I am assuming that you might have been directing your comment at my post. Is the accurately descriptive (and neutral in my mind) term "knee-jerk defenders" considered name-calling? If so' date=' I apologize. The original poster wondered if the move was a typical cost-cutting move by the FO and was first mocked for his thought, and then called "ridiculous" by a second poster. Are those "namecalling?"

 

To wit-- Is calling someone's post the "laughingstock" of Twins Daily, name- calling?[/quote']

 

To address your questions: 1) Your post was not singled out, as the entire thread had been cascading steadily downward. However, since you bring it up, does "knee-jerk defender" really sound neutral to you? I took the time to google "I am a knee-jerk defender" and came up with only 1 hit that wasn't defending against a strawman argument. So it's not a phrase someone ordinarily would use about himself. 2) Yes, as John B also stated, what I did was name-calling. The intent behind it was obscured, and so as I stated earlier, I'll just go back to standard warnings, deletions, and bannings as needed.

If satire is done with non caustic wit or irony, that would be fine?

I followed a link that said "Swiftian satire must be attempted only by people" and was hoping to find out whose dog took over the keyboard after the owner passed out.

A man needs testicles of Brobdingnagian size to question the courage of a Major League pitcher.

I agree Thegrin.

In addition, the guy is 27 years old and pitching in his first MLB game. He has done a fine job and can expect to pitch again the next week.

Is this a good time to go pick a fight with your manager?

  old nurse;bt8668 said:

If satire is done with non caustic wit or irony, that would be fine?

If you're asking how the moderators react, well, it's going to be case-by-case. Satire is by nature caustic, and the best satire burns your skin off without your even realizing you were the target until too late. (Another way of saying why what I tried was just too heavy-handed.)

Simply poking a little fun, ought in principle to pass muster, but even then it's risky: "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. If you really think the target of your comment will smile, even grudgingly, maybe it will be OK. But if your intent is just to straighten somebody else out, I dunno - just stick to the facts as you see them, would be my advice, and keep the direct personal comments and the alleged humor out of it.

I definitely recommend not trying assess the specific gravity of the content of anybody's coinpurse.